- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:27 CRL.RP No. 100218 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100218 OF 2022 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SHRI INDRAJEET SHIVAJIRAO PATIL AGE. 37 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. KALKAMB VILLAGE, TAL. AND DIST. BELAGAVI-590015. …PETITIONER (BY SRI J.S. SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND: MARKENDEYA CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., MANNUR, TAL. BELAGAVI, R/BY ITS RECOVERY OFFICER SHRI. SURAJ PIRAJI PATIL, AGE. 30 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE, R/O. C/O. SOCIETY ADDRESS MANNUR VILLAGE, TAL. AND DIST. BELAGAVI-591128. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. ABHISHEK BARIGIDAD, ADVOCATE FIR SRI. MRUTYUNJAY TATA BANGI, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 397 (3) R/W 401 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.12.2021 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.82/2021 BY THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE , BELAGAVI WHEREIN CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT DATED 01.06.2019 PASSED BY THE VIII-JMFC, BELAGAVI IN CC NO.240/2019 FOR OFFENSE UNDER SECTION 138 OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT 1881 BY REMINDING THE MATTER BACK TO TRIAL COURT AND ANY OTHER RELIEFS AS THIS COURT DEEMS FIT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. Digitally signed by SAMREEN AYUB DESHNUR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:27 CRL.RP No. 100218 of 2022 THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri.J.S.Shetty, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.Abhishek Barigidad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.M.T.Bangi, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Accused is the revision petitioner challenging the order of conviction passed in CC No.240/2019 dated 01.06.2019 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act which was confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.82/2021 dated 08.12.2021. 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under: Revision petitioner being the accused, obtained mortgage loan in a sum of Rs.70,00,000/- from the respondent- complainant bank. Towards part repayment of the said loan amount, a Cheque bearing No.032005 dated 02.03.2019 in a sum of Rs.51,77,775/- drawn on Bank of Maharashtra, Kirloskar - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:27 CRL.RP No. 100218 of 2022 Road, Belagavi came to be issued. Said cheque on presentation came to be dishonored. There was no compliance to the callings of the notice and therefore, the complainant was constrained to file the criminal complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. alleging the commission of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 4. Learned Trial Judge after completing necessary formalities, recorded the plea and thereafter, conducted the evidence. 5. In the cross-examination of P.W.1, no useful material is elicited so as to rebut the presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 6. In the examination-in-chief filed by way of an affidavit by the accused, he has admitted obtaining of the mortgage loan amount from the complainant and so also issuance of the cheque towards the part repayment. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:27 CRL.RP No. 100218 of 2022 7. All that he had sought for in paragraph No.4 of the said affidavit was seeking five months time to make good the cheque amount. 8. The affidavit came to be filed in the year 2019 and till today, the accused has not cleared the amount covered under the cheque. 9. When there is a clear admission on behalf of the accused, learned Trial Judge and learned Judge in the First Appellate Court were justified in convicting the accused. 10. Grounds urged in the revision petition was reiterated with vehemence by learned counsel for the revision petitioner to convince the Court that fraud has been played by the Advocate who represented the accused in collusion with the officials of the complainant bank resulting in huge loss not only to the bank but also to the public at large including defrauding the accused. 11. He also brought to the notice of the Court that a complaint has been lodged to the Karnataka Bar Council by the accused and necessary action is being initiated against the Advocate who represented the accused before the Trial Court - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:27 CRL.RP No. 100218 of 2022 and therefore, sought for admitting the revision petition for further consideration. 12. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner also brings it to the notice of the Court that the loan amount is also not released to the accused and therefore, there is no legally recoverable debt and therefore, sought for allowing the revision. 13. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the revision grounds. 14. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 15. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that the affidavit filed in lieu of the examination-in- chief by the accused, itself clinches the issue. If the Advocate who represented the accused is responsible for the fraud that has been played, what prevented the accused to bring it to the notice of the First Appellate Court about the said aspect of the matter is a question that remains unanswered. 16. Further, till today, no criminal action has been initiated by the accused by filing necessary complaint before the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:27 CRL.RP No. 100218 of 2022 jurisdictional magistrate for the misappropriation of the alleged cheque and also taking suitable action against his own Advocate. 17. On close scrutiny of the material on record, if the accused has been defrauded, forum for redressal of his grievances lies elsewhere. 18. Therefore, there is no justification in annulling the findings recorded by the learned Trial Judge as well as the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court. More so, when the loan transaction is not in dispute. Further, if the loan amount is not released as per the loan application, he may file necessary complaint before the jurisdictional authorities for taking necessary action against the complainant's society. 19. Reserving the liberty for the accused to take action against his Advocate as well as the bank officials for the alleged collusion and defrauding the revision petitioner, this Court is of the considered opinion that the grounds urged in the revision petition are hardly sufficient to admit the matter for further consideration. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:27 CRL.RP No. 100218 of 2022 20. Hence, following: ORDER i. Revision petition is meritless and hereby dismissed. ii. Amount in deposit, if any, is ordered to be withdrawn by the complainant under due identification. Sd/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV CT-CMU LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 34